So what agency or court does one complain to for assistance in filing charges
against Biden and Garland?
On Thursday, April 15, 2021, 11:49:03 AM CDT, cordero
<dmarc-noreply-outsider@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
NOTE: I would begrateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email
You are encouraged to share and post it to social media as widely as
possiblein your own interest and that of the rest of We the People; e.g.,
click“Reply All” and send.
To subscribeto articles similar to the one hereunder go to
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ;<left panel↓Register or + New
or Users >Add New. Candidate Bidenhad announced the nomination of
a commission to reform the court system;
President Biden has formed a commission
only to enlarge the Supreme Court and limit justices’ terms.
Has Attorney General Judge Merrick Garland prevailed
to reduce the commission’s scope
so as to prevent any investigation into judges’ conduct,
which would have exposed
his unlawful 100% dismissal of complaints against fellow judges and
the consequent cover-up of his and their underlying abuse of power?
Exposing the connivance between
the President and the Federal Judiciary
can bring down, not just a president, but rather a branch:
an unaccountable Judiciary
risklessly running a racketeering enterprise.
Pitching astory with Pulitzer Prize potential
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx , DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx Mr. Charles Ornstein, Managing Editor
Ms. Tracy Weber, Deputy Managing Editor
ProPublica
tel. (917)512-0222 charles.ornstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tracy.weber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
https://www.propublica.org/people
Dear Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, all other members of the media, and Advocates
of Honest Judiciaries,
This is a story pitch. Your experience,as described in your bionote, has drawn
me to pitch the story to both of you inparticular: You have investigated
national entities, namely, the health careand the pharmaceutical industries.
You, Mr. Ornstein, won the Pulitzer Prizefor Public Service; and you, Ms.
Weber, won the Pulitzer for NationalReporting. Combined, you have won an
impressive array of other major journalismawards. Youare a team of journalists
capable of investigating the national storysummarized in the above title. In
the process, you can make a name foryourselves and ProPublica, andbring so much
needed relief to those who individually can do nothing butcontinue to be the
victims in the story: We the People.
A. An investigation by you that launches a generalized mediainvestigation 1.
You “produce accountability journalismon issues of importance to the
community”. The issue of accountability is atthe top of the public debate here
and abroad. That is shown by the movementsMeToo!, BLM, against police
brutality, for socio-economic equality, and toprotect the Asian/Pacific
Islander communities. 2. Your investigation can set in motiona generalized
media investigation to hold the most powerful public officers
accountable,namely, federal judges. A single federal judge can declare any
lawunconstitutional, although debated, passed, and enacted by 535 members
ofCongress and a president elected by scores of millions of voters. 3. By
declaring laws, and progressivelythe whole agenda of a party, unconstitutional,
federal judges can preventpoliticians, even a whole party, from delivering on
their campaign promises,dooming them to appear inefficient and incompetent when
running for reelection. a. In fact, federal DistrictJudge James Robart of
Seattle, Washington State, suspended nationwide PresidentTrump’s ban on Muslim
travel and a panel of three circuit judges –although twowould have sufficed–
sustained the ban nationwide. Yet, candidate Trumphad campaigned in 2016 on
issuing that ban and received the votes of more than 62.5million voters. 4. In
addition, federal judges are theonly officers to have a life-appointment and
the concomitant long memory forholding grudges. 5. As a result, the
politicians whorecommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm them thereafter fear
their devastatingpower of retaliation: 6. To avoid becoming their
retaliatorytarget, politicians dare not even investigate ‘their men and women
on the bench’ regardless of how illegal orunethical their conduct may appear to
be. This explains how federal judges arein practice irremovable: In the last
232 years since the creation of theFederal Judiciary in 1789, the number of
federal judges impeached and removed is 8! 7. Protected from any investigation
andheld unaccountable by politicians, federal judges –the models for their
statecounterparts– abuse their power individually or as a judicial class to
grabgains and convenience for themselves. 8. Federal judges confirm Lord
Acton’sstatement in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton of April 3, 1887:
“Power corrupts, and absolute power [whoseessential element is
unaccountability] corrupts absolutely”. 9.You, Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, have
the experience tostart the investigation into federal judges’ riskless abuse of
power andthereby set off a generalized media investigation that starts holding
themaccountable on behalf of the People.
B. From a reform of the system of justice to a commission onlyto enlarge the
Supreme Court and limit its justices’ terms
10. Supreme Court Justice AntoninScalia died on February 13, 2016. President
Obama nominated his successor, towit, Then-Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the
Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit. 11. The Republicans
argued that thegeneral election in November 2016 was so close that it should be
left to theAmerican voters to elect the president who would nominate a justice
to alife-appointment office. On that basis, they denied Judge Garland even
ahearing. 12. Supreme Court Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg died on September 18,
2020. This inevitably posed the question whetherthe Republicans would be
consistent in applying the same principle, and all themore so since the general
election of November 3, 2020, was much closer. TheRepublicans were not.
Instead, they nominated and confirmed Then-Judge AmyConey Barrett to the
Supreme Court. 13. This caused the Supreme Court totilt to the right with a
decisive 6-3 Republican-leaning majority after thesuccessful nomination thereto
by President Trump of Then-Judges Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. 14. The
debate ensued whether if CandidateBiden won the election, he would increase the
number of Supreme Court justices–popularly known as ‘packing the Court’– so as
to nominate more candidates thatwould ensure a Democratic-leaning majority. 15.
When Candidate Biden was interviewedby CBS newsanchor Norah O’Donnell on
October 22, 2020, he was asked whether hewould increase the number of justices.
Instead of answering that question, heemphatically announced that if he became
president, he would nominate abipartisan commission to study for 180 days, ‘not
the number of justices, butrather the reform of the court system’ and report
its recommendations.
C. AG Judge Garland’s conflict of interest was resolved toprotect his interest
in avoiding any investigation of judges 16. After Candidate Biden won
thepresidential election, he nominated as his attorney general precisely
JudgeMerrick Garland, whose 7-year term as chief judge had ended on February
11,2020. 17. Judge Garland’s status as judgeand now attorney general has given
rise to an insurmountable conflict ofinterests. This is how it has arisen. 18.
The Judicial Conduct andDisability Act of 1980 (the Act; 28 USC §§351-364)
allows any person to file a complaint against a federal judge in thecourt of
appeals of the circuit, or the national court, where the judge sits. 19. The
officialstatistics on complaints against federal judgesare collected and
submitted to Congress(§604(a)(3-4)) as a public document in the AnnualReport of
the Director of the AdministrativeOffice of the U.S. Courts. The director
isappointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(§601). 20. The complaint
is first reviewed bythe chief judge, who must not investigate it. But the chief
judge can dismissit by alleging, for example, that the complaint is not within
the scope of theAct; or is “directly related tothe merits of a decision or
procedural ruling” or “frivolous”(§352). 21. To protect their fellow
judges,chief judges systematically dismiss 100% of complaints and deny 100% of
the petitions to reviewdismissals. 22. The significance of thosestatistics
becomes apparent upon learning that the Racketeering Influenced andCorrupt
Organizations Act (known as RICO; 18 USC §§1961-1968) provides that two acts of
racketeering committed within 10 yearsconstitute “a pattern of racketeering
activity”(§1961(5)). A defendant convictedof having engaged in such a pattern
can be imprisoned for 20 years and,depending on the offense, for life. 23. The
100% complaint dismissal andpetition denial is a pattern and far much more: It
is a policy. As such, it canreasonably be presumed to have been explicitly
coordinated among federaljudges, including the Supreme Court justices. It is
their institutionalizedmodus operandi. 24. Judges implement that policy
byabusing their power to ensure their unaccountability. They do it at the
expenseof complainants, whom they knowingly deprive of any relief from,
orcompensation for, the abusive conduct complained about. Federal judges
conspireto deprive We the People of the dueprocess right to “equal protection
of the law” (U.S. Constitution, 14thand 5th Amendments). They arrogate to
themselves the status of “JudgesCan Do No Wrong Under Any Law”. 25. So, the
official statistics showthat P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P.
Obama SCt nominee ChiefJudge Garland, and their peers in the Court of Appeals
for the District ofColumbia Circuit received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year
period, 478complaints against federal judges in theirCircuit. ChiefJudge
Garland and his predecessor dismissed100% of them. 26. In addition, these
chief judgesand their peers and colleagues in their Circuit’s judicial council
(28 USC§332) denied 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals. They did
so -asall other judges do- in the most perfunctoryway possible: by having the
clerk of court dump review petitions out of court byissuing a form whose only
operative word is “denied”, with no discussion of thelaw or any statement of
reasons or facts whatsoever. A denial as arbitrary andcontemptuous as a fiat,
for ‘kings need not explain; they only order’. 27. By so doing, Chief Judge
Garlandand his peers and colleagues arrogated to themselves the power to render
thatAct of Congress useless as a means of complaining against federal judges.
28. He and they have shown bias andpartiality toward their fellow judges and
their riskless abuse of power fortheir gain and convenience. Conversely and
necessarily, they have shownreckless indifference to the plight of the
complainants and the fate of therest of the People, left at the mercyof
unaccountable judges regardless of the nature, extent, and gravity of
theirabuse.http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-11Circuit.pdf
29. It is obvious that if AttorneyGeneral Judge Garland allowed the
investigation of complaints against judges bythe commission for the reform of
the court system that Candidate Biden hadannounced, never mind a complaint
filed with the FBIor the Department of Justice Office of Professional
Responsibility, he would end up investigated and incriminated for both his
abuse ofpower in dismissing 100% of complaints against his fellow judges and
denying100% of dismissal review petitions; and covering up the abuse of
powerunderlying the complaints. 30. Such cover-up has made JudgeGarland an
accessory after the abuse that he learned about but explicitly orimplicitly
agreed to turn a blind eye to; as well as an accessory before theabuse that the
same abuser or other people committed in reliance on theexpectation arising
from his previous conduct that he would likewise turn ablind eye to it. Of
course, he may also be covering up his own abuse as aprincipal, i.e. the person
who actually committed the abuse or ordered itscommission. 31. Moreover, his
abuse of power as aprincipal and/or an accessory has made him vulnerable to
fellow judges’‘trading up’ in plea bargaining, whereby in exchange for leniency
they wouldagree to testify to the abuse of ‘a bigger fish’ than them, that is,
AG JudgeGarland, or even ‘the biggest fish’, his boss, President Biden. Of this
graverisk he is reminded by the menacing warning that all judges have carved
ontheir foreheads: “I know about your own abuse. If you let anybody bring
medown, I’ll take you with me!” 32. These facts set the foundation forthe
investigative question prompted by the WhiteHouse press release of April 9,
2021, “President Biden to Sign Executive OrderCreating the Presidential
Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States” a. Did AG Judge Garland
in connivance with President Biden scale downthe commission from one to reform
the court system to one dealing with only theenlargement of the Supreme Court
and the limitation of justices’ terms, notbecause that was in the interest of
justice, let alone of We the People,but rather because they wanted to protect
their own interest in not beinginvestigated and ending up at the center of a
national scandal exposing federaljudges as riskless grabbers of gains and
convenience and the Federal Judiciaryas a racketeering enterprise?
D. Public outrage’s role in energizing a generalized mediainvestigation into
judges and their judiciaries 33. Due to Covid-19, millions ofpeople have lost
their jobs or only have precarious ones and suffer every dayfrom lack of food
or food insecurity. How outraged would they become if theylearned that judges,
who individually earn some four times the average nationalhousehold income,
abuse their powerto grab yet more gains and convenience? 34. Public outrage can
be so intenseas to lead to the resignation of one, several, or all the
justices. Theyparticipated in the abuse as lower court judges and currently
cover it up ascircuit justices (28USC §42) allotted with supervisory duties to
the several circuits. Manychief circuit judges and fellow judges would also
find the call for theirresignation by an outraged People toowidespread and
profound to remain in office. 35.You, Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, can setoff
such publicoutrage by conducting a pin-pointed andcost-efficient investigation
that in turn sets in motion a generalized mediainvestigation.
E. Leads to investigate abusive judges and their racketeeringJudiciary
36. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a politicianknowledgeable about financial matters,
daredenounce in her "I have a plan for theFederal Judiciary too” how federal
judges fail to recuse themselves from casesin which they own stock in a company
that is a party to the case before them inorder to resolve the ensuing conflict
of interests in their favor by protectingor increasing their stock’s value.
Sen. Warren refers to such practicethroughout the Federal Judiciary as judges’
abusive self-enrichment. Sheattributes it to their unaccountability. a. Such
self-enrichment necessarily entails their commission of thecrimes of
concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, andbreach of
contract for judicial services, of public trust, and of the oath ofoffice. But
it is riskless for judges. So they become predators, alwaysprowling for the
next prey. 37. Thomson Reuters conducted anationwide investigation into state
judges and published the first of its three-part report “TheTeflon Robe”, which
found “hardwired judicialcorruption”, on June 30, 2020. 38. Boston Globe, the
main newspaper inMassachusetts and a reputable one, published on September 30,
2018, its report“Inside our secret courts”, in whose “private criminal hearings
[conducted evenby clerks with no law degree], who you are –and who you know–
may be just asimportant as right and wrong”. 39. The FBI has vetted thousands
ofjudicial candidates and produced reports on them kept secret up to now. To
vetthem it exercised its power of subpoena, search and seizure, and
contempt,which the media lack. Its reports are bound to contain embarrassing
andincriminating information about the unethical and illegal conduct in which
judicialcandidates engaged before taking the bench and even thereafter given
that they havefelt protected by their peers and colleagues, who abuse their
power to cover uptheir fellow judges’ abuse. After all, people were acceptable
as judicialcandidates because they had shown that they understood how the power
game isplayed and were playing it. a. You can call into question President
Biden’shonesty, good faith, and commitment to transparency by demanding that
herelease the FBI's secret vetting reports on judicial candidates. b. It is
reasonable to expect that progressively many other journalistsand media outlets
will join you in such demand as they realize that they mustnot fail to jump on
the investigative bandwagon that you have set rolling. 40. I have collected an
abundance ofleads to start the investigation into, generally, judges and their
judiciaries(OL:194§E) and, particularly, AG JudgeGarland, and Supreme Court
justices. a. I am willing and able to participate in the investigation. For
proof,there is my three-volume study* † ♣ based onprofessional law research and
writing, and strategic thinking, thus titled: Exposing Judges'Unaccountability
and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* † ♣i. Open the downloaded files using
Adobe AcrobatReader, which is available for free. b. Supportedby that study are
the articles that I have written and posted to my website JudicialDiscipline
Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They haveattracted so many ;
webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positivelythat 37,721+ have
become subscribers to it(Appendix3). How manylaw firms, never mind lawyers, do
you know who have a website with so manysubscribers? 1) You can join the
subscribers thus:
go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ;<left panel ↓Register
or
+ New or Users >Add New. c. You can publish one or a series of
myarticles(Appendix 6) bound to outrage parties to cases as well as therest of
the People, such as: 1) the mathematicaldemonstration that judges do not read
the overwhelming majorityof briefs. The outrage that this will provoke can lead
to the formation of localchapters of parties to collectively demand that the
samejudge before whom they have appeared or those of the same court in which
theyfiled their cases compensate them for the waste of money in producing
theirbriefs –which can cost a party $1Ks and even $10Ks to produce– and for the
fraudinflicted on them. 2) judges’ interceptionof the emails and mail of
people to detect and suppress those oftheir critics. This can constitute one of
the most outrageous abuses because itinfringes on Americans’ most cherished
rights, namely, those under the U.S. Constitution, FirstAmendment, guaranteeing
their "freedom of speech, of the press, the rightof the people peaceably to
assemble [through the Internet and on social mediatoo], and to petition the
Government [of which judges are the third branch] fora redress of grievances
[including compensation for waste and fraud]"; 3) judges’ bankruptcyfraud
scheme. The gains that they grab through this scheme theymust necessarily cover
up. To that end, they pretend to comply with their dutyto file annual financial
disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Actof 1978 (5 USC,Appendix).
They do so by including false and misleading datain their reports. The latter
are filed with a reviewing committee composed ofother fellow judges, who are
also subject to the same filing duty. Hence, thereviewers have every interest
in being as indulgent with the filers as theywant the filers and their friends
to be eventually with them. Judges’ reports have been collected by, and
aredownloadable from, JudicialWatch.org.
F. Unprecedented citizens hearings for the People to reform the system of
justice
41. We can join forces in promoting unprecedentedcitizens hearings on
unaccountable judges’riskless abuse of power. For the first time ever, hearings
on a public issuewill be organized by media stations and universities
throughout the country. a. These citizens hearings will afford theopportunity
for victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power to telltheir storyto
the national public; and do so mostly through interactive video conferenceto
reduce travel expenses; reach the largest life audience possible; andreceive
their feedback in real time. b. They will have their stories taken down by,
andanswer the questions of, multidisciplinary panels of journalists,
professors,and experts. c. The leading panelists will draw up a report tobe
presented at the first-ever conference on judges’ unaccountability and abuseof
power, which will be broadcast nationally and internationally. d. The citizens
hearings are intended to be the unbiased anduncompromising means of exposing
judicial abuse of power; spark the formationof local chapters of victims; and
impart the unstoppable momentum for We the People to reform, not only thecourt
system, but rather the system of justice here and abroad. G. My offer of a
presentation to you and your groupof colleagues 42. I offer to pitch this story
to youand a group of your colleagues at a presentation via video conference or,
ifhere in New York City, in person. 43. To assess my capacity to make
suchpresentation, watch my videoand follow it on its slides. 44. To set its
terms and schedule ityou may use my contact information below 45. To consult
with others on this pitchand/or interest potential guests in attending my
presentation you may widelyshare this article and post it to social media, such
as: Facebook
Youtube
WhatsApp
LinkedIn
Instagram
Google plus
Pinterest
Reddit
SnapchatTwitter: Did P Biden drop his announced commission to reform the court
system,limiting it to the Supreme Court, at the urging of AG Judge Garland
trying to prevent any investigation of himself and fellowjudges;
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf
H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are. DONATEtoJudicial Discipline Reform by making a deposit
or an online transfer to Citi Bank,
routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001 through Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ
or by mailing a check to theaddress below. Dare trigger history!...and you
may enter it. I look forward tohearing from you. Sincerely, Dr. Richard
Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
tel. (718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@xxxxxxxxxxx , DrRCordero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, CorderoRic@xxxxxxxxx
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b NOTE: Given the ;
interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storageaccounts described at
*>ggl:1et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, when emailinghim, copy the above bloc of his
email addresses and paste it in the To: line ofyour email so as to enhance the
chances of your email reaching him at least atone of those
addresses.**********************************
